Theranos avoided proficiency testing, compromising accuracy and patient care.
Defense aimed to shift responsibility from Elizabeth Holmes to lab director in quality control.
Deep dives
Concerns Over Lack of Proficiency Testing
The former lab director, Doctor Rosendorf, raised repeated concerns about the lack of proficiency testing at Theranos, a standard practice in labs for accuracy assurance. He testified that he felt pressured to vouch for tests that he lacked confidence in, revealing that the company avoided conducting formal proficiency testing on their devices, potentially compromising accuracy and patient care.
Misleading Practices and Cover-ups
Doctor Rosendorf testified that Theranos misled physicians by not reporting incorrect results but claiming the data was temporarily unavailable. He expressed discomfort with justifying erroneous results and felt obligated to be honest with the providers and transparent with clients. Even Elizabeth Holmes' brother flagged issues with tests, indicating a culture of concealing inaccuracies.
Tension During Cross-Examination
During the cross-examination, the defense attorney aggressively questioned Doctor Rosendorf, highlighting inconsistencies in his statements and suggesting coaching by the government. The defense aimed to show that ultimate responsibility for quality control and accuracy rested with Rosendorf, not Elizabeth Holmes. Tensions ran high as the defense sought to portray Rosendorf as the decision maker in lab operations.
Shifted Accountability and Decision-Making
The defense attempted to distance Elizabeth Holmes from the day-to-day decision-making, emphasizing that Rosendorf, as the lab director, had autonomy in choosing how patient tests were conducted. While portraying Rosendorf as responsible for quality control, the defense underscored Elizabeth's lack of scientific expertise and involvement in laboratory operations, aiming to insulate her from accountability.
This week, we hear some shocking insights from a former Theranos lab director who says he tried to stop the train before it ran off the tracks. From failing machines to a lack of proficiency testing, he tells of the pressure he felt to vouch for tests while maintaining his integrity as a lab director. And he describes how he says he tried to delay the Walgreens launch, pleading with a “nervous” Elizabeth, who went forward nonetheless. But does an aggressive and lengthy cross-examination undermine his claims?